Search NASA⌕ Search

Engineering topics

Harbert, William

Publications and source records attributed to Harbert, William.

At least 19 records
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
DOE OSTI2024

Fracture Networks Imaging in CO2 Injection Zones in IBDP Site: An Unsupervised Machine Learning Application with Multiple Datasets

Poster presented at the 17th International Conference on Greenhouse Gas Control Technologies GHGT-17 held in Calgary, Canada, October 20-24, 2024. This poster highlights the integration of unsupervised machine learning (ML) techniques as a transformative tool for advancing understanding of CO2 injection into reservoirs that could potentially contribute to optimizing injection strategies and reservoir management, ultimately bolstering the efficacy and sustainability of CO2 storage.

Kumar, Abhash↗
DOE OSTI2024

Fracture Networks Imaging in CO2 Injection Zones in IBDP Site: An Unsupervised Machine Learning Application with Multiple Datasets

This is the conference paper accompanying a poster presentation at the 17th International Conference on Greenhouse Gas Control Technologies GHGT-17 held in Calgary, Canada, October 20-24 , 2024. This work highlights the integration of unsupervised machine learning (ML) techniques as a transformative tool for advancing understanding of CO2 injection into reservoirs that could potentially contribute to optimizing injection strategies and reservoir management, ultimately bolstering the efficacy and sustainability of CO2 storage.

Kumar, Abhash↗
DOE OSTI2024

Assessing the Value of Seismic Amplitude Versus Offset (AVO) Attributes for CO2 Storage Project Using a Bayesian Network Model for Decision Support

Attributes versus offset (AVO) are a set of measurements to analyze how the characteristics of reflected seismic waves change as a function of the offset. It can be useful for monitoring CO2 storage sites because the presence of leaked CO2 into the overlying aquifer can change the properties of the rocks and pore fluids composition that can alter the way seismic waves reflect and their amplitudes. The time-lapse changes in AVO attributes derived from repeat seismic surveys can help identify anomalies or shifts in the subsurface that could potentially be used as an indicator for CO2 leak detection. Our study leverages multiple seismic attributes derived from synthetic seismic data and Bayesian network model to quantify the probability of leak detection in the overlying aquifer above the storage reservoir. It helps to quantify the value of individual seismic attributes at multiple monitoring periods based upon their sensitivities.

Kumar, Abhash↗
DOE OSTI2024

Well-Log Derived Geomechanical Analysis of Microseismicity in the Mt. Simon Saline Aquifers (Illinois Basin - Decatur Project)

The Illinois Basin Decatur Project (IBDP) successfully demonstrated the safe geologic storage of carbon dioxide at a commercial scale. Within the IBDP project three deep wells (injection (CCS1), monitoring (VW1), geophysical (GM1)) were competed and geophysical logs were recorded. During injection and post-injection periods microseismic monitoring was conducted to create a miscoseismic catalog. The correlations between microseimic attributes and geomechanical well logs define major geomechanical drivers of microseismic expression to understand a reservoir response to CO2 injection in geological context. Utilizing standard sonic and density well logs, the dynamic elastic moduli were calculated and employed to correlate with microseismic pseudo-logs. A multi-dimensional Mu-rho and Lambda-rho (MRLR) hyperdimensional plots display of meaningful data and uncovered subtle relationships between elastic properties of sandstones and the seismological attributes of recorded microseismicity.

Myshakin, Evgeniy↗
DOE OSTI2024

Fracture Network Prediction Using Physics-based Machine Learning Algorithms

In recent years, systematic CO2 injection into geological reservoirs across the U.S. has gained traction as a strategy to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions. This approach necessitates precise monitoring to ensure secure containment, minimize risks, and optimize storage management. Our study leverages machine learning (ML) techniques to advance the understanding of CO2 injection processes, focusing on the Illinois Basin. Over a three-year injection period, we analyzed microseismic data, identifying 19 temporal intervals with significant bottom-hole pressure changes. By partitioning microseismic events into these intervals and estimating b-values, we revealed over 100 clusters of events related to fracture initiation or reactivation. Advanced spatial analysis highlighted horizontally-oriented fractures along the NNW-SSE axis. This quantification of fracture networks informs dynamic injection scheduling, work-over strategies, and risk assessments, enhancing carbon capture, utilization, and storage (CCUS) operations. Additionally, our methodology offers valuable insights for oil and gas operations and geothermal development, supporting fracture-based monitoring and risk mitigation.

Kumar, Abhash↗
DOE OSTI2024

Machine Learning Application for CCUS and Fracture Analysis

This is an invited guest speaker's presentation. The present covers three use cases by applying machine learning techniques. The use cases include fracture analysis for CCUS: IBDP study, multiple level of fracture network analysis and tool: HFTS1 study, Frac-Hit with Middleland Basin datasets from collaborations with Company A.

Liu, Guoxiang↗
DOE OSTI2024

CO 2 rock physics modeling for reliable monitoring of geologic carbon storage

Monitoring, verification, and accounting (MVA) are crucial to ensure safe and long-term geologic carbon storage. Seismic monitoring is a key MVA technique that utilizes seismic data to infer elastic properties of CO 2 -saturated rocks. Reliable accounting of CO 2 in subsurface storage reservoirs and potential leakage zones requires an accurate rock physics model. However, the widely used CO 2 rock physics model based on the conventional Biot-Gassmann equation can substantially underestimate the influence of CO 2 saturation on seismic waves, leading to inaccurate accounting. We develop an accurate CO 2 rock physics model by accounting for both effects of the stress dependence of seismic velocities in porous rocks and CO 2 weakening on the rock framework. We validate our CO 2 rock physics model using the Kimberlina-1.2 model (a previously proposed geologic carbon storage site in California) and create time-lapse elastic property models with our new rock physics method. We compare the results with those obtained using the conventional Biot-Gassmann equation. Our innovative approach produces larger changes in elastic properties than the Biot-Gassmann results. Using our CO 2 rock physics model can replicate shear-wave speed reductions observed in the laboratory. Our rock physics model enhances the accuracy of time-lapse elastic-wave modeling and enables reliable CO 2 accounting using seismic monitoring.

58 GEOSCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2023

Machine Learning Based Fracture Network Quantification at the IBDP CO2 Sequestration Site

This poster presents the latest results highlighted in SMART phase II task 4 of fracture network and mapping based on IBDP field data measurement. The results will be coupled into the dynamic modeling and simulation study to insight the impact of the fracture in the reservoir system. Such impacts will be applied to AI/ML development for training and test for science-informed decision making support for CO2 storage.

Kumar, Abhash↗
DOE OSTI2023

The Kimberlina synthetic multiphysics dataset for CO 2 monitoring investigations

Abstract We present a synthetic multi‐scale, multi‐physics dataset constructed from the Kimberlina 1.2 CO 2 reservoir model based on a potential CO 2 storage site in the Southern San Joaquin Basin of California. Among 300 models, one selected reservoir‐simulation scenario produces hydrologic‐state models at the onset and after 20 years of CO 2 injection. Subsequently, these models were transformed into geophysical properties, including P‐ and S‐wave seismic velocities, saturated density where the saturating fluid can be a combination of brine and supercritical CO 2 , and electrical resistivity using established empirical petrophysical relationships. From these 3D distributions of geophysical properties, we have generated synthetic time‐lapse seismic, gravity and electromagnetic responses with acquisition geometries that mimic realistic monitoring surveys and are achievable in actual field situations. We have also created a series of synthetic well logs of CO 2 saturation, acoustic velocity, density and induction resistivity in the injection well and three monitoring wells. These were constructed by combining the low‐frequency trend of the geophysical models with the high‐frequency variations of actual well logs collected at the potential storage site. In addition, to better calibrate our datasets, measurements of permeability and pore connectivity have been made on cores of Vedder Sandstone, which forms the primary reservoir unit. These measurements provide the range of scales in the otherwise synthetic dataset to be as close to a real‐world situation as possible. This dataset consisting of the reservoir models, geophysical models, simulated time‐lapse geophysical responses and well logs forms a multi‐scale, multi‐physics testbed for designing and testing geophysical CO 2 monitoring systems as well as for imaging and characterization algorithms. The suite of numerical models and data have been made publicly available for downloading on the National Energy Technology Laboratory's (NETL) Energy Data Exchange (EDX) website.

58 GEOSCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2022

Dataset documenting rock core evaluation from Brady’s Hot Springs well BCH-03

Nineteen short sections of core were taken from the BCH-03 borehole at Brady’s Hot Springs, Churchill County, Nevada, between 2,945 ft and the total depth of 4,885 ft. This well is in a geothermal field. Data collected includes thin section photomicrographs, Medical CT tiff stacks, microCT tiff stacks, XRD, porosity (from thin sections, He porosimeter, microCT segmentation) and P/S wave velocities.

Brady geothermal field↗
DOE OSTI2022

Kimberlina 1.2 CCUS Geophysical Models and Synthetic Data Sets

This synthetic multi-scale and multi-physics data set was produced in collaboration with teams at the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, National Energy Technology Laboratory, Los Alamos National Laboratory, and Colorado School of Mines through the Science-informed Machine Learning for Accelerating Real-Time Decisions in Subsurface Applications (SMART) Initiative. Data are associated with the following publication: Alumbaugh, D., Gasperikova, E., Crandall, D., Commer, M., Feng, S., Harbert, W., Li, Y., Lin, Y., and Samarasinghe, S., “The Kimberlina Synthetic Geophysical Model and Data Set for CO2 Monitoring Investigations”, The Geoscience Data Journal, 2023, DOI: 10.1002/gdj3.191. The dataset uses the Kimberlina 1.2 CO2 reservoir flow model simulations based on a hypothetical CO2 storage site in California (Birkholzer et al., 2011; Wainwright et al., 2013). Geophysical properties models (P- and S-wave seismic velocities, saturated density, and electrical resistivity) were produced with an approach similar to that of Yang et al. (2019) and Gasperikova et al. (2022) for 100 Kimberlina 1.2 reservoir models. Links to individual resources are provided below: [CO2 Saturation Models](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-co2-saturation-models); Resistivity Models – [part 1](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-resistivity-models-part-1), [part 2](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-resistivity-models-part-2), and [part 3](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-resistivity-models-part-3); [Vp Velocity Models](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-vp-velocity-models); [Vs Velocity Models](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-vs-velocity-models); [Density Models](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-density-models). The 3D distributions of geophysical properties for the 33 time stamps of the SIM001 model were used to generate synthetic seismic, gravity, and electromagnetic (EM) responses for 33 times between zero and 200 years. Synthetic surface seismic data were generated using 2D and 3D finite-difference codes that simulate the acoustic wave equation (Moczo et al., 2007). 2D data were simulated for six point-pressure sources along a 2D line with 10 m receiver spacing and a time spacing of 0.0005 s. 3D simulations were completed for 25 surface pressure sources using a source separation of 1 km in both the x and y directions and a time spacing of 0.001 s. Links to individual resources are provided below: [2D velocity models](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-2d-velocity-models) and [2D surface seismic data](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-2d-surface-seismic-data). [3D velocity models](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-velocity-models), and 3D seismic data [year0](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year0), [year1](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year1), [year2](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year2), [year5](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year5), [year10](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year10), [year15](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year15), [year20](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year20), [year25](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year25), [year30](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year30), [year35](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year35), [year40](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year40), [year45](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year45), [year49](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year49), [year50](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year50), [year51](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year51), [year52](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year52), [year55](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year55), [year60](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year60), [year65](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year65), [year70](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year70), [year75](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year75), [year80](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year80), [year85](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year85), [year90](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year90), [year95](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year95), [year100](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year100), [year110](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year110), [year120](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year120), [year130](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year130), [year140](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year140), [year150](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year150), [year175](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year175), [year200](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year200). The Python scripts to read these models and data are provided [here](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-python-scripts). EM simulations used a borehole-to-surface survey configuration, with the source located near the reservoir level and receivers on the surface using the code developed by Commer and Newman (2008). Pseudo-2D data for the source at [2500 m](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-pseudo-2d-csem-data-tz2500m) and [3025 m](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-pseudo-2d-csem-data-tz3025m), used a 2D inline receiver configuration to simulate a response over 3D resistivity models. The [3D data](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-csem-data) contain electric fields generated by borehole sources at monitoring well locations and measured over a surface receiver grid. Vector gravity data, both on the surface and in boreholes, were simulated using a modeling code developed by Rim and Li (2015). The simulation scenarios were parallel to those used for the EM: [pseudo-2D data](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-gravity-data) were calculated along the same lines and within the same boreholes, and [3D data](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-gravity-data) were simulated over 3D models on the surface and in three monitoring wells. A series of [synthetic well logs](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-well-logs) of CO2 saturation, acoustic velocity, density, and induction resistivity in the injection well and three monitoring wells are also provided at 0, 1, 2, 5, 10, 15, and 20 years after the initiation of injection. These were constructed by combining the low-frequency trend of the geophysical models with the high-frequency variations of actual well logs collected in the Kimberlina 1 well that was drilled at the proposed site. Measurements of permeability and pore connectivity were made on cores of Vedder Sandstone, which forms the primary reservoir unit: [CT micro scans](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-ct-micro-scans-of-vedder-formation) and [Industrial CT Images](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-industrial-ct-images-vedder-formation). These measurements provide the range of scales in the otherwise synthetic data set to be as close to a real-world situation as possible. References: Birkholzer, J.T., Zhou, Q., Cortis, A. and Finsterle, S., 2011. A sensitivity study on regional pressure buildup from large-scale CO2 storage projects. Energy Procedia, 4, 4371-4378. Commer, M., and Newman, G.A., 2008. New advances in three-dimensional controlled-source electromagnetic inversion, Geophysical Journal International, 172, 513-535. Gasperikova, E., Appriou, D., Bonneville, A., Feng, Z., Huang, L., Gao, K., Yang, X., Daley, T., 2022, Sensitivity of geophysical techniques for monitoring secondary CO2 storage plumes, Int. J. Greenh. Gas Control, Volume 114, 103585, ISSN 1750-5836, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijggc.2022.103585. Moczo, P., J.O. Robertsson and L. Eisner, 2007, The finite-difference time-domain method for modeling of seismic wave propagation: Advances in geophysics, 48, 421-516. Rim, H., and Y. Li, 2015, Advantages of borehole vector gravity in density imaging, Geophysics, 80, G1-G13. Wainwright, H. M.; Finsterle, S.; Zhou, Q.; Birkholzer, J. T., 2013. Modeling the Performance of Large-Scale CO2 Storage Systems: A Comparison of Different Sensitivity Analysis Methods. International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control, 17, 189205. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijggc.2013.05.007, DOI: 10.18141/1603331. Yang, X., Buscheck, T.A., Mansoor, K., Wang, Z., Gao, K., Huang, L., Appriou, D., and Carroll, S.A., 2019. Assessment of geophysical monitoring methods for detection of brine and CO2 leakage in drinking water aquifers, International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control, 90, 102803, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijggc.2019.102803.

CCUS↗
DOE OSTI2021

Kimberlina 1.2 Velocity Models and Seismic Data

Kimberlina 1.2 Velocity model and synthetic seismic data, produced in collaboration of teams at the National Energy Technology Laboratory, Los Alamos National Laboratory, and Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory through the National Risk Assessment Partnership. Data is associated with the following publication: Zheng Zhou, Youzuo Lin, Zhongping Zhang, Yue Wu, Zan Wang, Robert Dilmore, and George Guthrie, "A Data-Driven CO2 Leakage Detection Using Seismic Data and Spatial-Temporal Densely Connected Convolutional Neural Networks," International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control, Vol 90, 2019. The Kimberlina 1.2 Velocity models were produced by Zan Wang, Robert Dilmore, William Harbert, and Lianjie Huang at NETL. The following citations are directly related to the creation of the velocity models: Wang, Z. Harbert, W., Dilmore, R., Huang, L. Modeling of time-lapse seismic monitoring using CO2 leakage simulations for a model CO2 storage site with realistic geology: Application in assessment of early leak-detection capabilities. International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control. V. 76, September 2018, Pages 39-52. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijggc.2018.06.011 Wang, Z., Dilmore, R., Harbert, W. Inferring CO2 saturation from synthetic surface seismic and downhole monitoring data using machine learning for leakage detection at CO2 sequestration sites. International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control, V. 100, September 2020. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijggc.2020.103115 The velocity models were built based on the Kimberlina 1.2 aquifer impact data which is associated with the following publications: Buscheck, T.A., Mansoor, K., Yang, X., Wainwright, H., and Carroll, S. (2019). Downhole pressure and chemical monitoring for CO2 and brine leak detection in aquifers above a CO2 storage reservoir. International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control. 91. 102812. 10.1016/j.ijggc.2019.102812. Xianjin Yang, Thomas A. Buscheck, Kayyum Mansoor, Zan Wang, Kai Gao, Lianjie Huang, Delphine Appriou, Susan A. Carroll, Assessment of geophysical monitoring methods for detection of brine and CO2 leakage in drinking water aquifers, International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control, Volume 90, 2019, 102803, ISSN 1750-5836, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijggc.2019.102803 The synthetic seismic data was produced by Youzuo Lin and team at LANL, and are associated with the following citations: Jordan, P. D., and J. L. Wagoner. Characterizing Construction of Existing Wells to a CO2 Storage Target: The Kimberlina Site, California. Zheng Zhou, Youzuo Lin, Zhongping Zhang, Yue Wu, Zan Wang, Robert Dilmore, and George Guthrie, "A Data-Driven CO2 Leakage Detection Using Seismic Data and Spatial-Temporal Densely Connected Convolutional Neural Networks," International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control, Vol 90, 2019.

CO2 Leakage↗
DOE OSTI2021

Evaluating proxies for the drivers of natural gas productivity using machine-learning models

We report the extensive development of unconventional reservoirs using horizontal drilling and multistage hydraulic fracturing has generated large volumes of reservoir characterization and production data. The analysis of this abundant data using statistical methods and advanced machine-learning (ML) techniques can provide data-driven insights into well performance. Most predictive modeling studies have focused on the impact that different well completion and stimulation strategies have on well production but have not fully exploited the available in situ rock property data to determine its role in reservoir productivity. We have used machine-learning techniques to rank rock mechanical properties, microseismic attributes, and stimulation parameters in the order of their significance for predicting natural gas production from an unconventional reservoir. The data for this study came from a hydraulically fractured well in the Marcellus Shale in Monongalia County, West Virginia. The data classes included measurements aggregated by well completion stage that included (1) gas production, (2) well-log-derived measurements including bulk density, elastic moduli, shear impedance, compressional impedance, brittleness, and gamma measurements, (3) microseismic attributes, (4) long-period long-duration (LPLD) event counts, (5) fracture counts, and (6) stimulation parameters that included the fluid injection volume and average pumping pressure. To identify observable proxies for the drivers of gas production, we evaluated five commonly used ML approaches including multivariate adaptive regression spline, Gaussian mixture model, random forest, gradient boosting, and neural network. We selected five variables including LPLD event count, seismogenic b-value, hydraulic diffusivity, cumulative moment, and fluid volume as the features most likely to impact gas productivity at the stage level in the study area. The data-driven selection of these parameters for their importance in determining gas production can help reservoir engineers design more effective hydraulic-fracture treatments in the Marcellus Shale and other similar unconventional reservoirs. Plain language summary: We use machine-learning methods and data-driven selection of reservoir parameters to rank and better understand their importance in determining gas production, which can help reservoir engineers design more effective hydraulic-fracture treatments in the Marcellus Shale and other similar unconventional reservoirs.

58 GEOSCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2021

Evaluating Probability of Containment Effectiveness at a GCS Sites using integrated assessment modeling approach with Bayesian decision Networks

Improved scientific and engineering understanding of the behavior of geologic CO2 storage together with established regulatory framework and incentive structures raise the prospects for accelerated, large-scale deployment of this greenhouse gas emissions reduction approach. Incentive structures call for the establishment of appropriate verification and accounting approaches to support claims of the integrity of a geologic storage complex and to justify taking credit for long-term storage. In this study, we present a framework for assessing the probability of containment effectiveness over the lifetime of a geologic carbon storage site (e.g., after 70 years of injection and post-injection site performance) using forward stochastic model realizations based on site characterization data and using a monitoring-informed Bayesian network based on hypothetical detectability from surface seismic surveys over the site injection and post-injection phases. The National Risk Assessment Partnership’s open-source Integrated Assessment Model (NRAP-Open-IAM) was utilized to develop an ensemble of 10,000 a priori stochastic forecasts of CO2 containment. Those simulations were used to train the Bayesian network model to estimate the prior probabilities of the CO2 leakage mass into overlying, monitorable aquifers considering the uncertainties in the reservoir properties, permeability of potentially leaky wells and the overlying aquifers. The conditional probabilities in the Bayesian network were either learned from the NRAP-Open-IAM simulations or derived from the predefined detection thresholds for the monitoring method. Observations obtained from monitoring, over time during the site operation phases were then used to generate updated posterior probabilities of containment (and any loss from containment) in the Bayesian network by propagating the prior probabilities through the conditional probabilities. We demonstrate how to construct and use the Bayesian network for verifying the long-term storage complex effectiveness informed by monitoring based on the NRAP-Open-IAM simulations previously developed for the FutureGen 2.0 site. This approach may have relevance for stake holders to demonstrate secure geologic storage, provide a defensible, probabilistic approach to claim credit for geologic storage, and to estimate the likelihood that any fraction of the claimed credit may need to be refunded to the creditor based on available monitoring information.

Bayesian network, Risk assessment, Monitoring, car↗